National 6 (Spotlight Weekly)

A Difficult Business

Civil society must continue its peace building efforts, say experts

By A CORRESPONDENT

Those watching the Nepalese scenario closely say the country's polity may have reached at the stalemate stage, both politically as well as strategically. Many had thought that the appointment of Sher Bahadur Deuba and the constitution of the four-party coalition (plus-the royal nominees) might help break the stalemate and pave way for renewed peace negotiations.

As of now, it seems a far cry. International experiences also point towards a complex and often tortuous peace process, which takes years, if not decades. "Peace building is a difficult business," said Dan Smith, general secretary of International Alert, a London-based non-governmental organisation working to transform domestic conflict around the world.

Citing international experience, Mr. Smith said that almost 50 percent of the peace negotiations fail within the first five years and war resumes. About half of the armed conflict in the world today are cases where hostilities have resumed after failed peace negotiations.

In case of Nepal, the government and the Maoists entered into peace negotiations during the previous tenure of Deuba in August 2001. The four-month long peace negotiations collapsed after the rebels pulled out of the peace talks and targeted the Royal Nepalese Army for the first time in November (2001). The government retaliated declaring the nationwide state of emergency, terming the Maoists as "terrorists" and drafting army to counter them.

The royal-appointed Lokendra Bahadur Chand-led government was able to persuade the rebels to join the peace negotiations in January last year. His successor, Surya Bahadur Thapa, also continued his efforts to find a negotiated settlement with them. But the peace talks failed once again within a few months with the Maoists resuming hostilities once again. They blamed the government of not being serious towards peace negotiations.

"Lack of political consensus is the biggest obstacle towards working out a negotiated settlement to the problem of Maoist insurgency," said Daman Nath Dhungana, former Speaker and a member of the team of facilitators in the failed peace talks, addressing a seminar on "The conflict transformation in Nepal: Issues and International Experiences" organised by the Friends for Peace, a non-governmental alliance, in the capital on July 30.

"There is an element that has vested interest against the peace in Nepal," said a frustrated Dhungana. "That element remains restless as long as the peace talks continues and is capable of disrupting it before substantive issues are discussed," he added. Dhungana did not name who that element was but the Maoists had blamed the Doramaba incident where the Royal Nepalese Army personnel allegedly killed more than a dozen of Maoist activists and supporters in central Nepal when the talks were going on at Hapure in Dang for the failure of that round of peace talks.

So, should it mean that the Nepalese civil society give up its efforts towards restoring a sustainable peace in the country? "Of course, not," said Dan Smith of the International Alert. "No conflict is completely unique and no conflict is exactly like any other. But it is possible to learn lessons from the conflicts around the world."

He cautioned saying that the peace process must be inclusive and that there must be a social movement to support peacebuilding efforts.

Dan cited the "Good Friday agreement" in North Ireland and South African experience where all the different ethnic and racial groups had to be given a voice. "Conflict is always politics and peace settlement is always a political agreement," he said, adding, " I don't see a military victory (in the context of the Nepalese conflict) hence, there must be a peace negotiation."

Experts also pointed towards the fact that political process must be inclusive to create a conducive environment for peace negotiations. "In a parliamentary system, conflict most of the time takes place within the sphere of the parliament," said Nilamber Acharya, a former minister and diplomat. "In order to resolve the present conflict, there must be a government with democratic legitimacy," he added.

Social scientists say conflict is a must in any dynamic society. They, therefore, emphasize on the importance of peace-building efforts right from the grassroots level and attempting to transform conflict into sustainable peace. So, where can we go from here when the royal-appointed government says it can't discuss any amendment in the fundamental principles of the constitution and the Maoists say they will not agree on anything less than the elections to the constituent assembly.

"If the country feels the need, the parliament can work as a constituent assembly," said Nilamber Acharya, who was a minister in the interim government led by K. P. Bhattarai that drafted the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990. "We can't hold free and fair elections unless the current conflict is resolved. Hence, the only need now is to reactivate the dissolved House of Representatives," he opined.